Tabling for Savannah Earth
Day went well. There was a nice turn-out. I handed out about one
hundred booklets pieces of literature, and there was some nice
discussion. I like these events where there is more time to talk.

A medical vegan table was there called Our Friends Heart-Beats
For Life, and I am glad for the work they do, for it is so important.
Yet, CVA is an important voice in the wilderness, because it helps
others to be aware of the plight of animals and to be aware that
becoming vegan is also for love of the Living God Our Parent, and all
the other reasons.

Many people think faith and
rationality represent two different paths towards truth. Both have
their limitations, however. Faith can readily mislead, particularly
since it is appears to be heavily influenced by factors about which
the believer is often unaware, include cultural influences, early
childhood experiences, and unconscious fears and hopes. I doubt it is
a coincidence that most people adopt the faith of their parents and
those who don’t usually adopt another dominant faith system of their
community. Similarly, most belief systems provide psychological
comfort to believers when it comes to questions of whether they are
living righteously or whether they will enjoy everlasting life.

Rationality also has its limits. Neither
scientific investigation nor deductive or inductive logic tell us what
we are supposed to do with our lives or what our ultimate destiny will
be. However, rationality has the distinct advantage over uncritical
faith in being less likely to lead to serious error. While science and
rational inquiry are not immune to bias, outsiders can evaluate and
critique the various forms of rational inquiry.

I think a
faith that is open to critical analysis is psychologically healthy for
the faith-holder and desirable for the larger community. Such a faith
includes the ability to pass reality tests. If scientific evidence
contradicts a faith position, then those who hold that faith position
should be willing to reconsider their beliefs. This suggests that
people should be willing to change or even abandon their faith if it
proves untenable. We might be willing to defend what we believe to the
point of death, but we should be ready to change our position if it no
longer seems reasonable.

The problem is that people tend to be
most dogmatic about those points of faith for which there is the least
empirical evidence, such as the nature of the afterlife. I strongly
suspect that this rigidity reflect the fear that beliefs we hold dear
might not stand up to scrutiny. An illustration of why such scrutiny
is crucial is that the uncritical belief that humans have the right to
treat animals as humans see fit is a dubious belief at best, and it
certainly leads to great tragedy for countless nonhuman beings.

I like how one theologian once said that she has a “51%-49% faith.”
She acknowledged her lack of certainty about core faith statements,
but she said that we have no choice but to decide what we believe and
act accordingly. To choose to not take a position is to take a
position – which usually amounts to the default position of the
culture. In the case of animals, it usually translates into accepting
animal abuse as acceptable. The 51%-49% faith is open to adjustments
as needed, but it should not translate into a lack of conviction or a
reluctance to act on behalf of truth as the believer sees it.

Next week I will reflect on what a distinctly Christian faith might
look like.